Resource abundance & productivity

It is a well-known fact that resource abundance breeds a mindset that thinks little of waste. The problem is that a lot of resources "appear" to be abundant while they actually are not (e.g. water). Obviously, in such cases, the waste mindset is like a ticking time bomb.

In my experience (albeit limited) of working with Indian companies, I have noticed that the "employee's time" is most often considered abundant by the boss and he thinks little of wasting it. Of course, the employee is often to be blamed - we Indians are terrible at protecting our own time (and often space) and rarely ever push back our superiors' demand for our personal time. Most Indian bosses will not think twice about calling you over the weekend or late at night. The more sophisticated ones may proffer a muttered apology, but many (especially the owners of India's myriad family-owned firms) will not do even that. And most Indian employees will oblige (though often unhappily).

Now that is interesting. We Indians claim (rather loudly at times) that our social fabric and family ties are vastly superior than those of the "decadent West." But most Indians never think twice about sacrificing their personal time (with the family, mostly) to please the boss. Anyway, this is a digression, and not the purpose of this post.

What I learnt today is that it is not only the employee whose time is wasted and productivity sacrificed owing to such practices. The boss also, often unknowingly, sacrifices his productivity. There is nothing more potent than the lack of time that leads to strategically sound prioritization. Any boss who does not force himself to treat his subordinates personal time as sacrosanct loses the ability to prioritize. And prioritization is one of the key traits to be a boss and a leader.

I feel that changing this mindset can do wonders to India's poor labour productivity in the long run. I would any day be productive and leave office at 6 p.m. (and be considered lazy and insincere) than slog 14 hours a day and have little to show for it!

Checks and balances

When a firm is small or just starting up, checks and balances (or peer review) happens naturally through direct and regular communication across the firm. But as a firm grows, the quantum of such direct and regular communication naturally decreases. Checks and balances, peer review, compliance monitoring and such similar activities consequently become more difficult. This necessitates putting in place "systems and processes" to institutionalize the necessary checks and balances. While such processes (often in the form of "watchdogs" from the CEO's or Chairman's office) are viewed as interfering bureaucracy, they are often absolutely necessary in today's corporate world, where trust is rather low.

Now this creates an interesting problem. Imagine an average firm, where the majority of workers put in 8-10 hours of honest effort per day. It is impossible to employ a peer reviewer for each worker. So typically, most large firms will have a dedicated set of people (often the young, highly intelligent, ambitious B-school types, attached to the top boss' office) who are supposed to keep tab on performance and compliance. Since this is usually a small set of people who have to exercise oversight over a much larger set of workers, the amount of time they are able to dedicate to each project and each worker is rather limited. No matter how intelligent and capable they are, it will eventually become impossible for them to provide uniformly high quality and in-depth insights and feedback on all projects and workers across the firm. There will be slip-ups, and one rarely ever forgets or forgives such slip-ups by "watchdogs."

Thus continues the perpetual acrimony and bad blood between those who work and those who are supposed to ensure that work happens.

There is no doubt that in a large organization, there needs to be dedicated people to ensure compliance and peer review. But how can a leader put in place such systems and processes, which are inherently meant to be intrusive, without stepping on the toes and egos of those who deliver the work? Is it possible for a leader to find this balance or must he learn to live with it as a "necessary evil?"

The communication value chain

If I were to plot a "value chain" for effective communication, I suppose there will be four segments in it:

• Segment 1 - Listening: The ability and willingness to listen to what is being said. Most importantly, this implies resisting the urge to pretend to listen while "loading the gun" - mentally preparing for what one is going to say next rather than actually listen
• Segment 2 - Assimilate: Understand what is being said - Often implies the ability to understand the "core issue"
• Segment 3 - Information processing and value addition: Once what was being said is assimilated, process it and add value to it to enable a meaningful response that will take the conversation forward
• Segment 4 - Responding: Speaking out (or maybe gesturing or writing in response) to what was being said

It is no secret that listening is a rare skill. I have noticed that the sharper one is about grasping what is being said (assimilating - segment 2), higher is the chance that one is a bad listener. This is but natural - If one is sharp and perceptive, one can grasp the "core issue" that is being communicated pretty quickly and often end up interrupting the speaker with the response (sharp people usually work through segments 2 to 4 pretty quickly).

Now this is a problem. Leaders, in business as in any other field, need to be sharp people with the ability to get to the "core issue" quickly. But they also need to be good listeners - bad listeners rarely lead well. So how can sharp people train to be good listeners?

On time and relationships

It is a well known fact (or should I say opinion) that the quality of a relationship is directly proportional to the time spent on it. Of course, there is an optimum amount of time beyond which "familiarity begins to breed contempt," but by and large most of us agree that a good relationship is built over time, whether personal or professional.

In practical terms, this may end up being counter-intuitive. If we are in a detoriorating or bad relationship, our natural urge is to get away from it and stay away from it. This further diminishes the time we invest in the relationship and it keeps worsening. And so the vicious cycle continues till one day things come to a boil - threats of withheld payments and even direct assaults on reputation.

So what I learnt today is hardly insightful, but nevertheless very true and useful - swallow the bitter pill and do it while there is still time. If you are facing a threatened or worsening relationship, sit down with the guy (preferably over a drink) and lay it all out on the table. Then find where your perspectives overlap (no matter how small this commonality is), focus on that and build a realtionship that will help you move forward with the client (or away from the client, depending on the situation.)

While all this may seem painfully obvious, it is equally painful to note how rarely this is practiced. Instead, typical common strategies include:

• Hoping that soon other members of the client organization will realize what a moron this guy is and get rid of him - and all will be well again
• Come on! We are the next best thing to baked bread! Those guys can't do without us. This guy is just an irksome irritant. Just ignore him
• Get into a huddle with your partner and strategize on how to expose what a moron he is
• Spread the poison...

I guess most of us intuitively know which strategy has the highest chance of success. So why is it so difficult to practice? Is it ego?

On consultants and forced buyers

'Detachment' is supposed to be a virtue, at least among Hindus. I find it to be an effective weapon to survive at work. What makes this 'detachment' all the more enjoyable is adopting a 'learning mindset.' Not that it is easy to adopt a learning mindset. But often, it is the only way to convince oneself that the day has not been totally wasted and the innumerable meetings attended and slides made were not a complete waste of time.

Therefore, in a desperate attempt to justify the twelve hours a day I spend at work or commuting to work (I live in Bangalore, remember!), I have decided to list my lessons from each day in this blog. Not that I expect this to be of much help to anyone, but hey, its my blog!

So, my lesson for the day: When you face an unwilling buyer of your product or service, you have two options. One, convince him that he needs your product or service and make him realize your distinctive value (if you have one) and thereby convert him into a willing buyer. Or else, strategy two - shake hands and walk out while the relationship is still good and there is some residual dignity and respect left in the relationship. Often, you may feel that your customer is a prize idiot and does not know what is good for him (you, of course) and therefore be tempted to force your medicine (your product or service) down his throat. But this strategy rarely works in a professional relationship, because it is rather difficult to hide the underlying key assumption in your strategy from your customer - that he is a prize idiot. The most likely result of such a strategy is severe deterioration of the relationship, withheld payments, bad reputation and lost opportunities for repeat business.

Of course, all this is easier said than done. Often, there are very real bottom-line compulsions or the customer is a part of a 'key account.' Also, there is often the hope that the 'irksome' customer will be replaced by more willing clients (come on, they cannot not see that this guy is not the right guy). While I may be seemingly adopting a high horse now, I am curious to see how I will react if faced with a similar decision.